FEDERAL HIGH COURT

ANXIETY, AS ODUAH, OLANIPEKUN ISSUES MAY TOP NBA-AGM TODAY

• ODUAH KEEPS MUM, BATTLES TO SECURE CTC OF COURT ORDER
• PRESSURE ON AKPATA TO STEM ANTI-OLANIPEKUN PROTESTS
• LAWYER ASKS NBA TO RESCIND NAMING OF NBA BUILDING AFTER AKEREDOLU

There is palpable anxiety as lawyers troop to Eko Atlantic City for this year’s Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Meeting (AGM) which kicks off at noon today.

This may not be unconnected with the face-off between Mrs. Joyce Oduah and the NBA leadership as well as the controversy that trailed NBA’s demand that Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN recuse himself as the Chairman of the Body of Benchers (BoB)pending a probe of allegation of professional misconduct against Ms. Adekunbi Ogunde, a Partner in his law firm.

Though a Federal High Court sitting at Abuja had nullified the ratification of Oduah’s suspension by National Officers, both NBA and the estranged General Secretary have given varied interpretations to the ruling.

While Oduah’s Lead Counsel, Mr. Muritala Abdul-rasheed SAN told CITY LAWYER that his client has fully bounced back to her position as General Secretary following the annulment of the ratification by the National Executive Council (NBA-NEC), the Lead Counsel to NBA, Mr. Godwin Omoaka (SAN) countered this position, saying Oduah remains suspended.

Efforts by CITY LAWYER to know whether Oduah will attend the meeting to reclaim her seat proved abortive, as calls to her verified telephone number were not answered. She also did not respond to text messages.

On his part, Abdul-rasheed did not also respond to calls and messages, though he promised to return CITY LAWYER’s calls. He did not do so at press time.

CITY LAWYER gathered that Oduah has been battling to obtain a certified copy of the court’s ruling. An impeccable source told CITY LAWYER that this proved abortive as at yesterday, adding that “her lawyers will continue the quest today.”

An unimpeachable source at NBA HOUSE told CITY LAWYER that NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata has come under pressure to quell any anti-Olanipekun protests at the Annual General Conference. This may not be unconnected with speculations that there are plans to stage protests to force the former NBA President to quit the BoB position pending a determination of NBA’s petition against Ogunde.

There are indications that the matter may be raised under “Any Other Business.”

Meanwhile, a senior lawyer and former Secretary of NBA Lagos Branch, Mr. Seth Amaefule has urged the association to rescind the naming of a wing of NBA building after Ondo State Governor and former NBA President, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu SAN.

He prayed the meeting as follows: “That the naming of the Wing of the NBA Building situate at Ogo Aro Crescent, Area 2 Garki CBD, Abuja housing the NBA Human Rights Institute named after His Excellency Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, SAN (Past President of NBA and present Executive Governor of Ondo State) be set aside by this Annual General Meeting on the ground that this is not a name associated with human rights activism and public interest litigation in Nigeria.”

Click here to download the petition.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

COURT REFUSES FG’S BID TO FORFEIT FIRM’S N46 BILLION MALABU FEE

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has thrown out an application by the Federal Government for the final forfeiture of $110.5 million (about N45.97 Billion) by Energy Ventures Partners (EVP), the British Virgin Islands company which brokered the sale of the controversial oil licence by Dan Etete’s Malabu Oil & Gas Limited to ENI (Agip).

Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in setting aside the order of interim forfeiture and dismissing the application for final forfeiture, agreed with the Respondents’ submissions, holding that gisince the proceedings were in rem, the proper venue was a Swiss court in the light of the contested fund being domiciled in Swiss banks.

The latest setback to the Federal Government comes on the heels of the recent loss by Nigeria of its $1.8 billion claim against the global banking giant JP Morgan in a London court.

According to the Respondents, Malabu Oil had refused to pay for services rendered by Energy Ventures Partners, which sued and obtained judgment of a London High Court for the fee in 2015. The company kept the bulk of the money in its bank account and those of its sister companies and beneficial owner in Switzerland. It also transferred some of the fund to the companies which funded the litigation through accounts also in Swiss banks.

Nigeria, acting under the International Mutual Legal Assistance scheme, caused the Swiss authorities to freeze the monies and then later embarked upon their recovery by forfeiture proceedings under section 17 of the Advance Fee and Other Related Offences Act.

The Federal Government had obtained by an ex-parte application an order of interim forfeiture of the monies on February 14, 2022 which set the stage for the hotly contested final forfeiture proceedings.

Energy Ventures Partners and its privies – which constituted the first four respondents – however hired leading commercial litigator and white collar defence lawyer, Mr. Chijioke Okoli SAN to lead their legal team and stem the final forfeiture. The litigation funders, constituting the 5th-8th respondents who were initially absent, later joined and filed their papers, adopting the case made by the first set of respondents.

Challenging the forfeiture proceedings, the Respondents faulted the Federal Government’s case on a number of grounds, arguing that it constituted a gross abuse of process.

The court cast aside the Federal Government’s claim of reasonable suspicion of the monies being proceeds of a crime. The court held that “On the contention that the property sought to be forfeited are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities, it was argued by the Respondents that the Italian Court of Appeal cleared the 4th Respondent from allegations of criminal misconduct, the English High Court had adjudged the monies the subject matter of the present proceedings to be legitimate compensation for the services rendered by the 1st and 4th Respondents. The monies paid to the 5th to 8th Respondents are part of the monies legitimately paid to the 1st to 4th Respondents. In the Applicant’s affidavit in support, it was admitted in paragraph 7(xiv) that the dispute between the 1st Respondent and Malabu ended following the rendering of a judgment by Lady Justice Gloster ruling partially in favour of the 1st Respondent (EVP) and awarding it USD 110,500,000 as remuneration for services rendered in the course of negotiations made on behalf of Malabu.

“Indeed by exhibit 2 attached to the 1st-4th Respondents’ counter affidavit, the English (Commercial) Court in a suit between the 1st Respondent herein and Malabu found that… EVP had a contractual right to a reasonable fee and determined that ‘the reasonable (fee) for EVP’s services is $110.5 million, based on a fee of 8.5% of the total disposal consideration of $1.3 billion.’…. By exhibit 2, the English High Court determined with finality that the monies the subject matter of the present forfeiture proceedings was the lawful and just entitlement of the 1st-4th Respondents for services rendered.

“I agree with Respondents’ senior counsel that parties for the purposes of the application of res judicata extends to those with interest in the subject matter of litigation, with the result that if they were aware of the case but chose to stand by and let others fight their battle then they would be bound in the same way as the actual parties. He is deemed to have waived his right to complain and he is certainly bound by the outcome of such action. See Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 480; Kurma v. Sauwa (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt.1659) 247 at p.261 para. F. The Applicant from the evidence before this Court was aware of the proceedings between the 1st Respondent and Malabu but chose to stand by. They are bound by the decision in exhibit 2. It is not only exact parties to a case that are caught by the doctrine of res judicata and issue estoppel but also their privies. I agree with the learned senior counsel for the Respondents that in the circumstances of this case that Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd (the defendant in exhibit 2) and the Applicant herein are privies for purposes of the monies.”

The Court also held that “the Applicant concealed facts from this Court in obtaining the interim order of forfeiture.”

The multiple losses by the Federal Government in several jurisdictions in cases arising from the Malabu saga has raised concerns on the huge resources being spent on the cases in light of lean and dwindling resources.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

BOSAN, CHIEF JUDGE MOURN, AS LUCIUS NWOSU GOES HOME FRIDAY

The Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) and Chief Judge of Federal High Court, Justice John Terhemba Tsoho were among leaders of the Bar and Bench who paid glowing tributes to foremost environmental law expert, Late Lucius Ezeaka Nwosu at a valedictory session held in his honour in Abuja.

Tsoho described Nwosu as “one of the finest Senior Advocates of his generation,” adding that the valedictory session was “an opportunity to express with clarity and warmth, how the late SAN was genuinely respected at the Bar and in all of his dealings with the Court. Therefore we count it as an honour to celebrate his lifetime and practice.”

The chief judge noted that until his death, “the distinguished late Silk had applied his perseverance, doggedness and dexterity in offering excellent legal services to his numerous clients, which comprised more of the Niger-Delta Communities. He was a fighter for human rights, the legal warrior of the Niger-Delta Communities and he will be remembered for easing the liability that comes with engaging the services of a lawyer with his clients.”

Saying that Nwosu “defended the financially and politically powerless whenever their rights were trampled upon,” Justice Tsoho stated that the late litigator was “a fierce environmental campaigner and activist through litigation,” adding that “Those he litigated against dreaded and labelled him ‘Lucifer Nwosu’ but the beneficiaries actually adored him.”

On its part, BOSAN in a tribute delivered by former Attorney General & Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi SAN stated that “A time will never come when we shall forget the prowess of Lucius Nwosu. You witnessed yourselves the exploits of this remarkable man. The commendations that we bestow on him are a tribute to our profession. He is therefore entitled to our gratitude. He was a well-educated man, reared and trained in strict self-discipline. Whoever reared him, reared him well.”

According to BOSAN, “To deal with the achievements of Lucius Nwosu as a whole is something that we cannot now attempt in the short time available to us,” adding that “In his devotion to our profession Lucius Nwosu neglected himself.”

The body of senior lawyers stated that “The best tribute we can pay to him is to endeavour to realize our talents as he realized his and use them for the benefit of mankind as he used his. Lucius Nwosu was that man to whom the Lord gave five talents and who when he rendered his account the Lord commended him saying: ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant.’ ”

BOSAN described him as a “great man” and a “man of high character,” saying that “Lucius Nwosu was a selfless man. He was a brilliant man. He did not know how to relent. He was a man of defiant spirit. The grave cannot hold such a man down. We are witnesses to the trials and temptations that he had to contend with. We are witnesses to the many difficulties he had to overcome. We are witnesses to all the dangers that he had to avoid. He worked harder than a slave but it was the Lord that he served. He had to overcome many difficulties. He had to avoid many dangers and strive on so that on this day when he gives account of his stewardship, he can say, as did St. Paul: ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.’ ”

The body urged lawyers to “do our work with all the passion, energy and sincerity that we can summon” notwithstanding that the legal profession has “come under suspicion of aiding and facilitating the collapse of the nation.”

Turning to the judiciary, BOSAN said: “As for you judges and justices, we thank you for your sacrifices. The fault is not yours that the nation continues to languish in violence and uncertainty. It is in spite of all your sacrifices. Do not despair. It shall be well. We have hope.”

It concluded that “Lucius is not dead. Though he failed to achieve old age, he has achieved a fame which knows no age. He has now been released from sickness and grief and from all the other sorrows and anxieties that attend our lives.”

The foremost senior lawyer will be buried on Friday at Udo Ezinihitte Mbaise Local Government of Imo State.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Apr 12, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on NNAMDI KANU SUES DSS, MALAMI OVER CHANGE OF CLOTHES

NNAMDI KANU SUES DSS, MALAMI OVER CHANGE OF CLOTHES

Embattled Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has dragged the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN, the State Security Service (SSS) and its Director General to the Federal High Court over alleged refusal to allow him change his clothes.

In an application filed yesterday by his lawyer, Mr. Maxwell Opara, the detained IPOB leader sought “AN ORDER directing the Respondents, jointly and severally, to immediately allow the Applicant to have a change of clothes in their detention facility or at any time he appears in public for his trial.”

In the court documents made available to CITY LAWYER, Kanu is also seeking “AN ORDER of this court directing the Respondents, jointly or severally, to allow the Applicant to start wearing any clothes of his choice, more so, to allow him to wear his traditional Igbo Attires (Isi-Agu) and/or other Igbo traditional attires of his choice.”

Kanu has also urged the court for “AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents, their authorized agents by whatever name so called, from further disturbing or interfering with the rights of the Applicant to dignity of human person and freedom from discrimination or in any way infringing on the constitutional rights of the Applicant as guaranteed by law or from making any attempt capable of violating the Applicant’s rights as guaranteed under the Constitution.”

In the application brought pursuant to Order II Rules 1, 2, 3, & 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, Sections 34(1)(a), 42(1) and 46(1) – (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Articles 5 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Vol. 1 LFN 2004 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the pro-Biafra activist is also seeking the following reliefs

1) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the Respondents, whilst carrying out their lawful duties, are bound to adhere to and/or respect the fundamental rights of all citizens of Nigeria as enshrined in Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

2) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the Applicant, even though currently a detainee, is entitled to the enjoyment of his fundamental right to dignity of human person as guaranteed under Sections 34(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 5 African Charter on Human and Peoples rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act CAP A9 Vol. 1 LFN 2004.

3) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the Applicant, even though currently a detainee, is entitled to the enjoyment of his fundamental right to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed under Sections 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

4) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that, notwithstanding that the Applicant is detained in the Respondents‟ detention facility, the actions of the Respondents, jointly and severally, in constantly refusing and/or preventing the Applicant from having a change of clothes or subjugating the Applicant to wearing one particular cloth against his will, both while within their detention facility or on days when he is to appear before the Federal High Court or other designated place/s for his trial, constitute a subjection of the Applicant to in human and degrading treatment, thus a gross violation of the Applicant‟s right to dignity of human person as guaranteed under Sections 34(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 5 African Charter on Human and Peoples rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act CAP A9 Vol. 1 LFN 2004.

5) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that, notwithstanding that the Applicant is detained in the Respondents‟ detention facility, the actions of the Respondents in constantly preventing and/or commanding the Applicant to desist from wearing the traditional Igbo attire(Isi-Agu) or other attires identical to the Igbo Ethnic group of Nigeria; even when no law in Nigeria forbids the Applicant from wearing same and more so when it is a notorious fact that other inmates from other ethnic groups wear their traditional clothes, constitute a subjection of the Applicant to full-fledged discrimination by reason of his ethnic group or place of origin, thus a gross violation of the Applicant’s right to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed under Section 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

The application is accompanied by a 10-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Opara. No date has been fixed for hearing of the lawsuit.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jan 15, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on LAWYER SENDS SOS TO FEDERAL HIGH COURT

LAWYER SENDS SOS TO FEDERAL HIGH COURT

In this article by MR. IBRAHIM LAWAL, Head of Chamber, Olujinmi & Akeredolu of the Law Hub, Ibadan, he chronicles the challenges faced by lawyers due to the transfer of a Federal High Court jurist from Ibadan and urges the court to redress the issue

 

FEDERAL HIGH COURT IBADAN AND THE DIFFICULTY IN GETTING JUSTICE

The Federal High Court which started as a revenue court has assumed an important role in our judicial system by virtue of the exclusive jurisdiction donated to it in our Constitution. Only the Federal High Court can adjudicate on matters enumerated in Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, and by virtue of which Federal High Courts were created in each state of the Federation for easy access to justice.

However, in creating those Courts, certain states were recognized as hubs of commercial activities, which made the authority to create more than a court room in such States. For instance, Lagos State can boast of more than ten court rooms while Ibadan was allocated two which in itself is grossly inadequate!

The Federal High Court Ibadan over the years have been manned by two Judges until about a year now when Hon. Justice Malik was transferred to Abeokuta division of the court, the court is now being manned by only one Judge. The judge in actual fact is hardworking but the cases in his Lordship dockets are overwhelming.

All the cases assigned to Justice Malik court have suffered permanent adjournment with dire consequences on lawyers and litigants alike. What is more, the cases at the Federal High Court are business oriented cases which should not for any reason be delayed.

A colleague of mine is facing a serious crisis of confidence with his client simply because he could not secure an order because his application was assigned to the court without a judge! The matter has to do with transactional issue and because of that failure, the company’s account has been blocked! This is just one example of so many of our colleagues that have suffered because of the absence of a presiding Judge in the other Court.

Do we mention the criminal cases that have been pending and the Defendants languishing in detention because the court has not been sitting?

This state of affairs at the Federal High Court Ibadan is no longer bearable for us as lawyers and we beseech the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, to as a matter of urgency make available a Judge for this Court.

We trust this appeal will be given the attention it deserves and hope that the new year will be better than the last.

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.